| Re: thresholding/color question [message #18873 is a reply to message #18707] |
Mon, 07 February 2000 00:00  |
Alex Schuster
Messages: 124
Registered: February 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning wrote:
> Alex Schuster (alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de) writes:
>
>> Isn"t the usage of WHERE discouraged because of being slow?
>
> If it is, it's news to me. :-)
Hey! I think I read this here in this newsgroup.
>> I always use direct matrix operation for this, like:
>>
>> redmask = scaledImage GT threshold
>> scaledImage = scaled_Image * (1B-redmask) + byte(!D.Table_Size-2) *
>> redmask
>
> I don't doubt there are speed advantages in matrix operations,
> but unless you had a huge image I doubt very much you
> would notice. And even then, the increase in speed would probably
> be more than offset by the additional memory usage.
Okay, I just tried it out. Indeed, not much of a difference, both
algorithms take about the same time. It depends on how big your index
list will get. Here's my test program:
pro test, dim
b = bindgen( dim )
starttime = systime( 1 )
index = where( b ge 200B )
if ( index[0] ne -1L ) then b[index] = 255B
print, 'Time using index list:', systime( 1 ) - starttime,$
format='(A,D8.4)'
b = bindgen( dim )
starttime = systime( 1 )
mask = b ge 100B
b = temporary( b ) * (1B-mask) + mask * 255B
print, 'Time using mask array:', systime(1) - starttime,$
format='(A,D8.4)'
end
An array of dimension 10,000,000 takes about two seconds to compute,
with the index method being slightly faster here. When lowering the
threshold, my method becomes faster.
> Plus, I don't have a clue what this code is doing when I
> read it! Simple things for simple folk, is my motto. :-)
Well, believe me or not, I think my approach _is_ simple :) Finding out
all those red values, putting them together into a list and then
assigning a new value to each pixel in this list, wow, that's a lot of
work. So I just multiply some arrays :)
Okay, I must admit, it also makes the source code look _cooler_.
> P.S. If my memory serves, Alex, aren't you the one with
> the 10 quadrillion Megs of RAM on your machine? Perhaps
> matrix operations *are* the best thing for you. :-)
Not really, I must admit. Just tested it with a size of 100,000,000, and
the mask method took 300 seconds, compared to 40 using the index list.
Hm, strange. This was a machione with 400 MB memory. On an UltraSparc
with 512 MB (not 10 quadrillion megs), it takes 32 / 37 seconds. Looks
like a constant ratio, unless swapping begins.
test, 1000000000000LLL is still running, can't say anything about that
yet... I will post the results to this newsgroup, if there still is such
a thing as newsgroups when it's finished.
Alex
--
Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available
alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
